To sum up

in truth, i enjoyed many of the points made in this class, especially in regards to the museum/gallery and how they operate AND how the perception has changed with the advent of institutional critique and the rise in artists that focus on their role in society. However, my qualms come into place in regards to my own practice. It did open up new avenues for the future, and i have taken into account the new and greater perceptions i have gained, but as a whole, there is not a lot of relation between my practice and what we have been learning about. It actually worked the opposite way in the fact that i feel my practice has been rendered obsolete now that it seems social art is the new band wagon to jump on.. at least it feels as such. if u cant change art anymore change the artist?? or rather, change the people who see the art? who knows
these blogs did become a mess i found a stressful mess for a time considering they had to be done before 9 oclock every fking monday morning, although somewhat helpful and insightful, they are all over the place jumping from topic to topic...a pain in the arse to read... GOODLUCK CALEB!
Other than that, probably going back to the start of the semester i would have done a different topic on the bounds that id want something more motivating to my practices in third year, nevertheless i have taken what i have learnt it and will apply it accordingly to whatever i endeavour to do.

GARDEN FRIEND

i enjoyed the class in the garden. i wonder why all of our classes are not done in the open air, do away with technology!
i found it a very good idea, although there is the breach between what is art and what is gardening. i think, as i think what was said on the day, that it is not so much that its the fact of the garden, but rather the social interraction between people and between nature that gives it an identity in art.. particularly with social relations. i think it can be quite controversial this topic, but it is down to personal thought about what is considered art...i think there is a lot to speak about in regards to artistic gardening... or the social relations around. for instance you have the communty farms in lakemba, where you can plant and grow your crops alongside others and share knowledge on flora and a managerie of other things i suppose... i think the thing about social relations in regards to making a garden or a farming communtiy is that it invites discussion, no matter the topic.
In an artistic sense, and i bring this back to the kwons paradigm of 'art as public interest' and with the greater awareness now of global warming and reducing your carbon footprint, it has great relelvance. perhaps make the garden look like a giant oil refinery just to give it some spice!

different thought

i think that the certain degrees of relational aesthetics that i stongly agree with and stongly disagree with. I think your arty party world is a bit trivial, or making points about gallery space or museums. Fair enough if u want make those points, changing the spaces and what not, but i suppose it depends whether or not you seek to change or alter society and in what ways. if refering to the paradigms on this topic from Kwons sitings of public art, 'art in public spaces' model is good and well as you have a change in context away from the gallery and the museum, but after a time in just becomes another ornament in the grand architectural contructs of our cities... so to a degree, these works say only a very little... like the work in redfern... it is there, it exists.. hoorah...
then you have 'art as public spaces', which i think is a better move. now have forms that can directly influence a person or people, it can affect them, change moods, alter perceptions.. but i think art for social realtions in the political and socio-economic arena, 'art in the public interest model' makes for a more valid point discouse. Like the CAE or IAA, these collectives who make works which tackle the issues of our time, like biodefense and public censorship. here you have artists, often anonymous, who challenge almost to the extent of activism, the status quo of our context and to create change amongst the population as a whole... not merely a tourist or observer who notices nice sculptures here and there....

Site Specifically

As Kwon discussed, and as issac pointed out, in whatever type of site specific art you may or may not always have controversy. i think that, (and i think this of all art) you must have works that provoke and distress, and works that bring comfort or are socially friendly... you have to have night and you have to have day.. it is natural. i believe in Serras point of interrupting the site specific space, of interferring or destroying its monotony or normality... as an artist, you would want this to happen, otherwise you would end up with a great variety of shading areas, seats and pointless fountains... and anything that is generally accepted slowly will become absorbed into everyday monotony.. people will just get used to it, even if at the time of its construction they deemed it fit, it soon becomes just another material communal motif..
but if you have something totally ruining the flow of architecture.. something for the general public to comment on whether for or against, then you have something of worth, something of equal worth to say.. an artwork made to shade people, but on the opposite side of the spectrum. You need the two opposing sides to have the whole i think. In that sense niether type of site specific art is wrong or right...
you could have public endorsed art that would benefit the community, or another artist shooting her or his own guns for the sake of ruining everything, to bring ruin to the norm.. both is beneficial for society i think, whether at the time it seems so or not...

RANTING

'The idea of the institutional critique raises a lot of confusion for me, to begin with the idea of being limited by the mundane and often conservative views of the establishment in order to gain success is a horrifying concept for me. Despite this I also can entertain the notion that the need for an institutional critique is almost imperative to the existence of artistic practice, funnily enough this seems to be reflected, as the existence of the institutional critique is void without the presence of art.' Kara Nissen
yes its very fucking horrifying because its slavery. it makes you think that if institution after institution from school to uni have been teaching me, then could my thoughts and ideas essentially be preconditioned and constructed to perform in a certain type of society or to just a generic flatline of knowledge... which i think can be quite absurd because it just questions yourself ulitmately. but what is also funny is that at an institution to create artists say, you have a a curriculum that teaches art that seeks to usurp the system to a degree, but could that just be a fabricated sense of 'freedom in art' that makes people believe it is transending the established order but really... is it doing anything at all.. why are we being taught social relations? could this be just another trend for art? or maybe just a slight veer off the money making road.. i am just ranting to myself here pretty much.

I agree with digby, its a very fucked up cycle. capitalism i believe has essentially ruined the world, but by the same token, there are those exceptions as Kara noted with the american man walking through the desert.. capitalism is pretty much a control of a great mass of people, the great vast unfortunate majority of people, thats why it is needed because i think most people dont really question the established order of things.. i find the idea of working horrid in the sense that i must go and slave, to serve dumb (mostly) people who get their kicks being fucking die hard david jones customers... because thats all they know, the idea of class... which is established by capitalism. they think that by shopping there elevates them to a higher position within society (like there fucking is any) any way, after this we then get taxed on the digital 'money' that we inherit which is calculated by? what... how fucking old u are? thats living nowadays, and i dont know how many people out their actualy question it.. i find it very disturbing. oh, and it also causes wars funny that.
So 'who is art for?' nobody and everybody. it seems like another job for most , same shit different shackles, and thats the problem because the art isnt free or freed. you have to live off it because the institution makes you. and if museums and galleries dictate the trends, then instead of 'who is art for' maybe you could argue 'why is art for...? i dont think you can try to restablish the current order instituted by the institution... its like an unseen web and that motherfucker of a capitalist spider is good at making it.
excuse the ranting.. feel free to have a go at my pessimism if u can actually be bothered reading my mechanised keyboard vomit...

you cannot trancsend the material aesthetic i dont think, at least if u try there is no gain from making an artwork about it because in reality you still have material boundaries, and most people are material and thats aesthetic justification enough for them... there is no dissolution of art into life because its all just a heap of conceptual rubbish about transcendental art.. i mean what the fuck honestly art into life??? maybe if there wasnt such critical bullshit and more action of maybe..say.. improving the quality of life then you would have an art form that evolves from that that is free of market economy and the art world and purely based on community aesthetic rather than that governed by 'institutional critiques'.. art now just isnt raw enough.. as caleb was saying i think it is very tame..

Intitutional People

i agree very much with the words from Andrea Fraser in terms of people realising that they are a product of the institution rather than an individual with artistic concepts that they wish to express. i think thats why i find art school to a large degree bullshit because we make art for a designed market and a designed way of thinking. i agree greatly with the vienna based group wochenklauser that art should improve human existence, however i dont think a lot of people give a shit about human existence.. a lot of people dont have compassion for other things, for other forms of life let alone other people. in a world of successes and the ever-cursed celebrities... being successful is now survival, especially as they say in the reader its kids with rich parents that go to art school rather than those of a lower class...
it makes me question how reflective upon society the art world actually is... u can change a few microcosms but you would have a long way to go changing bigger things in society that ultimatley contribute to how the art world is run today. again people are so fucking dumbed out, im not targeting anyone in particular just the general population...i believe in a collective unconcious so i dont underestimate a great deal of people thinking this way.. but acting upon is the difficulty... on a good note this reader does make me like the topic a little more... now i am just writing to myself... hmmm...

RA and ideas raised from arty party

ive read yve alain bois' the task of mourning which i found very interesting inregards to this topic. speaking of the idea of commodity fetishism and objects like $600 dollar shoes that in no way equates to theactual price of production nor of the function of the object. in terms of the death of painting, contemporary painting seems to be follow an art market trend, a commodity fetish amongst collectors and artists. Ephemeral art like that of relational aesthetics i think is a rather futile progression on the basis that society is dumbed down too much, and relational aesthetics is still condcted in the boundaries of the art world. painting may be dead because of it becoming the commodity, whereas as relational aesthetics makes or attempts to make society the art. a lot of people i talk to at work know very little about current art trends... even what they teach in school is but a spit in the ocean, so to what purpose is it exactly to society if only people who are thoroughly interested actually traverse the topic.. it makes sense with the new trend of RA coming more to the fore in the art world, painting is commodified, thus defeating its essence. so if society is made as art, the essence of ourselves within society is prjected as an artform through social interraction.. and this cannot exactly be commodified i suppose.. im just ranting my thoughts..

at the amsterdam biennale last year much of what i saw was very much reflective of social commentary.. or bringing cultures from distant lands, exploring politics heavily especially with the war in iraq. and now it seems to be as they say a focus on microcosms within society and the the interactions of casual people.. i seems to steer away from the artwork in a gallery space and detach the author from the work, so that the interactions of the artist, curator and audience become the artwork...
What is the purposes of these interractions and meetings and communal gatherings for critical thought..? in relating to the death of painting and also relational aesthetics, if the wall between the art world and society was removed then you would have a trend of art as life.. i think the internet is the way to go.. networking and online activity provides a global art.. rather than a performance or installation concerning a particular environment that is not of accessability to the global public...the again not everyone has the internet..

Critical Relation to Social Spaces

hmmm, i like the idea of disrupting the art gallery, as in douglas gordons work. i believe art has gone astray in general.. yes this art creates 'relationl microterritories displayed in the depth of the contemporary 'socius' but how much ofit is actually seen by the general public.. or is that not the point? is it relational to only galleries and/or those who choose to invlove themselves in the art world and does the greater public understand the motives if they even know what is going on... if it is social relations i dont think it should so much be something of 'art'.. in that sense this blogging can be made as an artwork.. maybe if we got on our iphones or on facebook and sent msgs to each other in the conext of a gallery or in 'the name of art' maybe that would make it an artwork? does dressing up in a pink bunny suit make an artwork out of that man or/and make the artist.. an artist? is it just art relating to society rather than a commentary on little social microcosms... earning millions of dollars for an artwork or the artwork of a deadman 100 years ago is not art either, because of the price of paper connected to it.. i like this art because it is ephemeral.. like society...but its like jumping fads in little micro societies where people get too caught up in their mountains made out of moleshit.. like doc martins to raybans... i think art personal art should be shared amongst those who wish to see outside of a gallery, and if its working for society then set up food stall called 'art' and hand uot food to the homeless rather than set up a pad for artists to chill in.. i think the art world is bullshit.. i think society is bullshit. as if being in the roselyn oxely gallery is some privaledge.. .. rich people make art, like victors write history.. im not an artist and never will consider myself one. i make colours go together with a furry stick and that equals
$ 34132413,1234234,23423. keep it real and sane please, excuse the massive whinge.

i enjoy artists like stelarc.. i think that is pioneering social interface and social relations to its peak.. where the internet is commonplace to the extreme. i think his works are ahead of time, people nowadays are continuously getting touchy with their laptops and radiation emitting hand machines so i dont doubt there will be more of a rise of this commentary of the relation between art as society or society as art... people should move on from their locality.. arts traditions have changed but not that of the little microcosms we live in.. if thats the point of this art.. to alter our foundations then hoorah so be it..
but in the end what do i know